I must say that I find one person completely underrated on these boards and in general:

Andre Agassi.

Now, I'm not a particular fan of Agassi. I'm not that fond of him, I'm too young really for that era but Sampras was my favourite and is apart from Federer but look at what Agassi did!

8 Grand Slams
Career Golden Slam

4 Austailian Opens
2 US Opens
1 Wimbledon
1 French Open
1 Olympic Gold Medal
1 Masters Cup
17 Masters Series (more than Federer and Nadal)
And 31 other tour titles giving him a total of 60 titles.

He's also third all time leader in earnings after a certain Mr.Federer and Sampras............

This guys done it all, and as much as I don't like him, you have to give him credit for it.

icedevil0289

02-20-2009, 05:11 PM

after federer, agassi is my favorite player, which sounds wierd because I never really watched tennis while he was actually playing and I guess some might find it wierd that I like fed and agassi though they have contrasting styles. I can understand why many underrate him. He was pretty inconsistent, but still 8 slams and the olympic gold is nothing insignificant.

NadalandFedererfan

02-20-2009, 05:13 PM

Agassi is not underrated but in fact way overrated by many on these boards. Half of his titles came in Australia which is still the least prestigious slam even today, and back in the 70s and 80s many of the guys who also have 7 or 8 slams didnt even play as unlike today it wasnt even a true slam. When I hear people putting him in the top 5 all time I laugh. He is barely top 15 at best.

Agassi is not underrated but in fact way overrated by many on these boards. Half of his titles came in Australia which is still the least prestigious slam even today, and back in the 70s and 80s many of the guys who also have 7 or 8 slams didnt even play as unlike today it wasnt even a true slam. When I hear people putting him in the top 5 all time I laugh. He is barely top 15 at best.

But you can't deny what he has done. He has acheived nearly everything there is to achieve in tennis in terms of what you can win. Sure, you can talk about records and multiple slams and titles and 5 in a rows etc. and most years at no.1 etc. but to be honest. you MUST be considered as one of the greatest in the history of the sport if you've won almost everything possible in the sport atleast once. He won all the slams, olympic gold medal and 17 masters!!

I don't know why I'm defending him when I can't stand him, especially seen as I'm Federer 4 life~! lol. But I think it's a bit unfair considering what he's done.

icedevil0289

02-20-2009, 05:20 PM

But you can't deny what he has done. He has acheived nearly everything there is to achieve in tennis in terms of what you can win. Sure, you can talk about records and multiple slams and titles and 5 in a rows etc. and most years at no.1 etc. but to be honest. you MUST be considered as one of the greatest in the history of the sport if you've won almost everything possible in the sport atleast once. He won all the slams, olympic gold medal and 17 masters!!

I don't know why I'm defending him when I can't stand him, especially seen as I'm Federer 4 life~! lol. But I think it's a bit unfair considering what he's done.

lol I'm federer 4 life and I really like agassi.

NadalandFedererfan

02-20-2009, 05:25 PM

But you can't deny what he has done. He has acheived nearly everything there is to achieve in tennis in terms of what you can win.

Agassi is known as someone who managed to scrape together everything over a long career devoid of any dominance, consistency, or impressive performance vs top rivals.

gj011

02-20-2009, 05:38 PM

Djokovic is the most underrated player here.

Federer, Ivanisevic, Hewitt, Roddick, ... are all overrated.

Agassi is neither.

NadalandFedererfan

02-20-2009, 05:46 PM

Djokovic is the most underrated player here.

Federer, Ivanisevic, Hewitt, Roddick, ... are all overrated.

Agassi is neither.

How is Ivanisevic overrated? The guy is an amazing grass court player and got super unlucky to be during the Sampras era on that surface.

GameSampras

02-20-2009, 05:49 PM

Agassi for sure is underrated around these parts. I think some people tend to forget how great Andre really was because they cant see past his MIA during the 96-98 years and his inconsistencies. Hes arguably the best returner the game has ever seen.. Best BH ever. And a master of dictating play from the baseline.. One of the few baseliners that could win wimbeldon when it was dominated by serve-volleyers. A player whos game translated well on any surface and could win anywheres.

He wasnt the dominant force Borg, Fed, Laver, Sampras were but he was one of the best to ever pick up a racket.

NadalandFedererfan

02-20-2009, 05:51 PM

Agassi for sure is underrated around these parts. I think some people tend to forget how great Andre really was because they cant see past his MIA during the 96-98 years and his inconsistencies.

Right because there is nothing wrong at all about taking a 3 year sabatical from tennis more or less right in the middle of your 20s. Well the Williams do that as well but unlike him they have such amazing talent they can still be champions while doing that.

GameSampras

02-20-2009, 05:55 PM

Right because there is nothing wrong at all about taking a 3 year sabatical from tennis more or less right in the middle of your 20s. Well the Williams do that as well but unlike him they have such amazing talent they can still be champions while doing that.

Not when u consider how long his career stretched out while winning slams. He was winning slams at 33 years of age. How many players in history can attest to that. Not many. He was also taking a peak Fed to 4 or 5 sets at 34 and 35 years of age and was giving Fed more trouble than player that was supposed to be a Fed's rivals 04-07 outside of Nadal on clay..

You think Fed will be winning slams at 33? How about Nadal?? Will he even be walking then?

icedevil0289

02-20-2009, 05:56 PM

Now when u consider how long his career stretched out while winning slams. He was winning slams at 33 years of age. How many players in history can attest to that. Not many. He was also taking a peak Fed to 4 or 5 sets at 34 and 35 years of age.

You think Fed will be winniing slams at 33? How about Nadal?? Will he even be walking then?

I don't know about nadal, but the optimistic/wishful part in me thinks fed will be winning slams at 33.:)

GameSampras

02-20-2009, 05:58 PM

And the goofy williams sisters are dominating (well serena is) one of the weakest fields of players the WTA has EVER SEEN. You think Serena doughnuts williams would be able to dominate while maintaining part time play and being overweight while Henin is still around? You think she could handle Graf, Navritilova, Hingis, Seles, etc with the way she is now? No way in hell. Shes defeating Russian headcases and joke number 1 players like Ivanovic and Jankovic

NadalandFedererfan

02-20-2009, 06:01 PM

Not when u consider how long his career stretched out while winning slams. He was winning slams at 33 years of age. How many players in history can attest to that. Not many. He was also taking a peak Fed to 4 or 5 sets at 34 and 35 years of age and was giving Fed more trouble than player that was supposed to be a Fed's rivals 04-07 outside of Nadal on clay..

You think Fed will be winning slams at 33? How about Nadal?? Will he even be walking then?

I dont know what Federer or Nadal will be doing at 33 but I bet Federer will not exit the top 3 in the rankings before turning 29 as opposed to Agassi who at ages 22, 23, 26, 27, and 28, ended years ranked #9, #24, #8, #100-something, #6. I would rather have sustained a very high level of tennis until atleast when close to 30 then have embarassing lows for a great player over half of my 20s on my record, then a few rarer glory moments in my 30s.

If you are going to glorify Agassi for being so good at an older age you cant then turn around and mock players for having tough matches with him at that older age. So what is it, was he really good at that age or not really that good at that age after all and guys today just sucked for losing sets to him sometimes at that age. You cant have your cake and eat it too, especialy when you are trying to cover up all the huge holes in Agassi's career with that cake.

gj011

02-20-2009, 06:04 PM

I dont know what Federer or Nadal will be doing at 33 but I bet Federer will not exit the top 3 in the rankings before turning 29 as opposed to Agassi who at ages 22, 23, 26, 27, and 28, ended years ranked #9, #24, #8, #100-something, #6. I would rather have sustained a very high level of tennis until atleast when close to 30 then have embarassing lows for a great player over half of my 20s on my record, then a few rarer glory moments in my 30s.

If you are going to glorify Agassi for being so good at an older age you cant then turn around and mock players for having tough matches with him at that older age. So what is it, was he really good at that age or not really that good at that age after all and guys today just sucked for losing sets to him sometimes at that age. You cant have your cake and eat it too, especialy when you are trying to cover up all the huge holes in Agassi's career with that cake.

Federer will end this year as #4 or #5.

NadalandFedererfan

02-20-2009, 06:05 PM

And the goofy williams sisters are dominating (well serena is) one of the weakest fields of players the WTA has EVER SEEN. You think Serena doughnuts williams would be able to dominate while maintaining part time play and being overweight while Henin is still around? You think she could handle Graf, Navritilova, Hingis, Seles, etc with the way she is now? No way in hell. Shes defeating Russian headcases and joke number 1 players like Ivanovic and Jankovic

Who cares. Atleast she takes advantage of the situations she is given. Agassi was wasting away with Brooke Shields and Taco Bell while lesser talents than himself like Kafelnikov, Korda, Moya, were collecting titles that could have been his.

NadalandFedererfan

02-20-2009, 06:05 PM

Federer will end this year as #4 or #5.

You keep dreaming that fool.

thalivest

02-20-2009, 06:07 PM

Federer will end this year as #4 or #5.

Yeah just like Del Potro was going to beat Federer in Australia, Jankovic was going to win the Australian Open, Djokovic was going to smack down Roddick to make him pay for the U.S Open. :oops:

gj011

02-20-2009, 06:07 PM

You keep dreaming that fool.

No need to call names. Just showing how unsecure and silly you are.

We shall see at the end of the year.

zagor

02-20-2009, 06:08 PM

Not when u consider how long his career stretched out while winning slams. He was winning slams at 33 years of age. How many players in history can attest to that. Not many. He was also taking a peak Fed to 4 or 5 sets at 34 and 35 years of age and was giving Fed more trouble than player that was supposed to be a Fed's rivals 04-07 outside of Nadal on clay..

You think Fed will be winning slams at 33? How about Nadal?? Will he even be walking then?

No but Fed also didn't plunge outside of top 100,wasn't off chasing actresses and singers and being on a cheeseburger diet all in his supposed prime years when he was so much "better" than by the time Fed faced him.There's a couple of reasons Agassi was able to play on such high level in his older years(he had the best career year in '99),his ability to take the ball on the rise and make his opponents do most of the running,his great dedication to fitness later in his career but also the fact that he wasted a lot of his prime years so he wasn't as spent as other greats,it's not only about age in tennis(or any sport)it's about mileage as well.

NadalandFedererfan

02-20-2009, 06:08 PM

Yeah just like Del Potro was going to beat Federer in Australia, Jankovic was going to win the Australian Open, Djokovic was going to smack down Roddick to make him pay for the U.S Open. :oops:

Someone picked Del Potro to beat Federer in a grand slam, or Jankovic to win a slam event. That is funny. Jelena is the biggest loser #1 in history, the one thing GameSampras said I agree with.

gj011

02-20-2009, 06:09 PM

Yeah just like Del Potro was going to beat Federer in Australia, Jankovic was going to win the Australian Open, Djokovic was going to smack down Roddick to make him pay for the U.S Open. :oops:

Yes just like Djokovic would never win TMC, and DelPotro and Davydenko are going to destroy him there, ...

Better not start with this, since you are the master of bad predictions on this board.

thalivest

02-20-2009, 06:12 PM

Yes just like Djokovic would never win TMC, and DelPotro and Davydenko are going to destroy him there, ...

Better not start with this, since you are the master of bad predictions on this board.

My predictions are generally excellent. I was wrong in one event where a certain player got a huge amount of luck, as he obviously is not bad in good form as his devoted worshipers who refused to believe the massive luck he got in the TMC thought, as his early results in 2009 show. You are wrong on pretty much everything, your only chance to be right on a prediction is to come in and pick Nadal to win the French Open.

You pick Djokovic to win everything and I pick him to win nothing and since he only wins about 10% of the time I guess that makes me right about 90% of the time and you about 10% of the time there.

zagor

02-20-2009, 06:15 PM

Djokovic is the most underrated player here.

Federer, Ivanisevic, Hewitt, Roddick, ... are all overrated.

Agassi is neither.

I would agree with you that Djokovic is severely underrated right now but for a period people here were talking how he's the next Fed,the next one to dominate,would finish 2008 #1 etc. so can't say he's overall being underrated.Rather that he's either underrated(right now) or overrated(when he won AO and IW).

Ivanisevic is talked by many people here as being another Karlovic,just a serve etc. not true otherwise he wouldn't be able push the greatest grasscourter ever(IMO)in his prime in Wimbledon so much,he had to have something else in his arsenal as well.

Definitely don't agree Hewitt and Roddick are overrated,they are both underrated IMO.Nobody respecs them for their achievements at all and talk about them like they're some top 20 players at best.

gj011

02-20-2009, 06:16 PM

My predictions are generally excellent. I was wrong in one event where a certain player got a huge amount of luck, as he obviously is not bad in good form as his devoted worshipers who refused to believe the massive luck he got in the TMC thought, as his early results in 2009 show. You are wrong on pretty much everything, your only chance to be right on a prediction is to come in and pick Nadal to win the French Open.

You pick Djokovic to win everything and I pick him to win nothing and since he only wins about 10% of the time I guess that makes me right about 90% of the time and you about 10% of the time there.

What you don't understand is that voting on a poll is not the same as picking and claiming someone is going to win the tournament.

And I am to lazy to go and dig your "excellent predictions". LOL

zagor

02-20-2009, 06:19 PM

Someone picked Del Potro to beat Federer in a grand slam, or Jankovic to win a slam event. That is funny. Jelena is the biggest loser #1 in history, the one thing GameSampras said I agree with.

Well Jelena is one of the weakest number ones ever,I can't deny that but she's hardly a loser,I think she'll have her chances at the FO this year even though she's in bad form at the moment.She didn't have a bad 2008,reached FO and AO semis and USO finals(giving Serena a good match),not a great year but a good one certainly.

I completely agree with this, also somehow, and don't ask me how, Connors also seems to be underated on these boards. Is it an age thing?

Gugafan

02-20-2009, 07:59 PM

Not when u consider how long his career stretched out while winning slams. He was winning slams at 33 years of age. How many players in history can attest to that. Not many. He was also taking a peak Fed to 4 or 5 sets at 34 and 35 years of age and was giving Fed more trouble than player that was supposed to be a Fed's rivals 04-07 outside of Nadal on clay..

You think Fed will be winning slams at 33? How about Nadal?? Will he even be walking then?

Good point...Agassi's longevity is unmatched in mens tennis, which is further proof of him being one of the greats.

The achievement of a career grand slam often seems to be overlooked. Something neither Sampras, Fed or Nadal have been able to achieve.

RoddickAce

02-20-2009, 08:05 PM

Agassi for sure is underrated around these parts. I think some people tend to forget how great Andre really was because they cant see past his MIA during the 96-98 years and his inconsistencies. Hes arguably the best returner the game has ever seen.. Best BH ever. And a master of dictating play from the baseline.. One of the few baseliners that could win wimbeldon when it was dominated by serve-volleyers. A player whos game translated well on any surface and could win anywheres.

He wasnt the dominant force Borg, Fed, Laver, Sampras were but he was one of the best to ever pick up a racket.

I agree, he was a crazy tactian and could hit hard off both wings. That combo alone made him my favourite tennis player (even above Roddick).

flying24

02-20-2009, 08:15 PM

Good point...Agassi's longevity is unmatched in mens tennis

This is simply not true. Agassi is not tops even in the longevity category.

Connors was still competitive and in a U.S Open semifinal at age 39, 3 years older than Agassi retired. Connors ended 1982 as the dominant player and Wimbledon/U.S Open Champion at age 30, similar to what Agassi did in 1999 at age 29 but in his case only due to Sampras injury asterix at the U.S Open. Connors won 2 U.S Opens past age 30, something I would take over 2 Australian Opens that Agassi achieved past age 30.

Laver won the Calender Slam at age 31, and was still widely regarded the top player in the World at age 32 in 1970, and by some at age 33 in 1971.

Gonzales was one of the top pro players in the World well into his 30s, and with the advent of open tennis even was still competitive and taking sets off the best players in the world at ages 40 and 41.

Ken Rosewall was in the finals of Wimbledon and the U.S Open at age 39. He won his final 3 majors at ages 35, 36, and 37.

Agassi's career slam is not overlooked. Without it those of us who rank him outside the top 15 would instead rank him outside the top 30 probably. His career with all its shortcomings relative to other greats would then rank below even people like Wilander, Edberg and Becker even with 1 or 2 additional slams (depending if his now lost Wimbledon or French Open is replace with another) who both far surpass him in consistency and peak level of dominant play. Yet with the career slam almost all rank him over those 3.

veroniquem

02-20-2009, 08:45 PM

No but Fed also didn't plunge outside of top 100,wasn't off chasing actresses and singers and being on a cheeseburger diet all in his supposed prime years when he was so much "better" than by the time Fed faced him.There's a couple of reasons Agassi was able to play on such high level in his older years(he had the best career year in '99),his ability to take the ball on the rise and make his opponents do most of the running,his great dedication to fitness later in his career but also the fact that he wasted a lot of his prime years so he wasn't as spent as other greats,it's not only about age in tennis(or any sport)it's about mileage as well.
Excellent analysis. I've been saying the same thing for quite a while now but nobody seems to listen. I wish you better luck than I've had on this issue!

veroniquem

02-20-2009, 09:06 PM

This is simply not true. Agassi is not tops even in the longevity category.

Connors was still competitive and in a U.S Open semifinal at age 39, 3 years older than Agassi retired. Connors ended 1982 as the dominant player and Wimbledon/U.S Open Champion at age 30, similar to what Agassi did in 1999 at age 29 but in his case only due to Sampras injury asterix at the U.S Open. Connors won 2 U.S Opens past age 30, something I would take over 2 Australian Opens that Agassi achieved past age 30.

Laver won the Calender Slam at age 31, and was still widely regarded the top player in the World at age 32 in 1970, and by some at age 33 in 1971.

Gonzales was one of the top pro players in the World well into his 30s, and with the advent of open tennis even was still competitive and taking sets off the best players in the world at ages 40 and 41.

Ken Rosewall was in the finals of Wimbledon and the U.S Open at age 39. He won his final 3 majors at ages 35, 36, and 37.

Agassi's career slam is not overlooked. Without it those of us who rank him outside the top 15 would instead rank him outside the top 30 probably. His career with all its shortcomings relative to other greats would then rank below even people like Wilander, Edberg and Becker even with 1 or 2 additional slams (depending if his now lost Wimbledon or French Open is replace with another) who both far surpass him in consistency and peak level of dominant play. Yet with the career slam almost all rank him over those 3.
I don't agree with your assessment of Connors vs Agassi's career. First of all Agassi started winning tournaments at 17 whereas Connors won nothing until almost 20. After the age of 30 (31 and up) Connors won 13 tournaments, most of which were small events and 1 slam.
After 30, Agassi won 15 tournaments of which 2 were slams and most remarkably 7 were masters. Agassi won his last master at 34. To me his career in his 30s was more brilliant and more competitive than Connors', if we add the fact that Agassi was significantly more precocious than Connors, we'd have to say that Agassi's career was the most spectacular in his longevity at a high level of the open era (even though Connors stayed on the pro tour older).

flying24

02-20-2009, 09:12 PM

I don't agree with your assessment of Connors vs Agassi's career. First of all Agassi started winning tournaments at 17 whereas Connors won nothing until almost 20. After the age of 30 (31 and up) Connors won 13 tournaments, most of which were small events and 1 slam.
After 30, Agassi won 15 tournaments of which 2 were slams and most remarkably 7 were masters. Agassi won his last master at 34. To me his career in his 30s was more brilliant and more competitive than Connors', if we add the fact that Agassi was significantly more precocious than Connors, we'd have to say that Agassi's career was the most spectacular in his longevity at a high level of the open era.

Agassi did not win 2 slams at 31 and up either. His 2nd last slam title- the 2001 Australian Open, was when he was 30, not 31. Both he and Connors won 1 slam title at ages 31 and up. Connors's was a U.S Open title by beating Ivan Lendl. Agassi's was an Australian Open title by beating Rainer Schuettler. Back then the other "big events" were not neccessarily Masters as they are today, so dont be so sure all of Connor's other wins at 31 and up were small events.

Agassi took until he was 22 to win an event that really mattered so dont exagerrate his early precociousness either. Connors at 21 was already dominating mens tennis.

GameSampras

02-20-2009, 09:13 PM

This is simply not true. Agassi is not tops even in the longevity category.

Connors was still competitive and in a U.S Open semifinal at age 39, 3 years older than Agassi retired. Connors ended 1982 as the dominant player and Wimbledon/U.S Open Champion at age 30, similar to what Agassi did in 1999 at age 29 but in his case only due to Sampras injury asterix at the U.S Open. Connors won 2 U.S Opens past age 30, something I would take over 2 Australian Opens that Agassi achieved past age 30.

Laver won the Calender Slam at age 31, and was still widely regarded the top player in the World at age 32 in 1970, and by some at age 33 in 1971.

Gonzales was one of the top pro players in the World well into his 30s, and with the advent of open tennis even was still competitive and taking sets off the best players in the world at ages 40 and 41.

Ken Rosewall was in the finals of Wimbledon and the U.S Open at age 39. He won his final 3 majors at ages 35, 36, and 37.

Agassi's career slam is not overlooked. Without it those of us who rank him outside the top 15 would instead rank him outside the top 30 probably. His career with all its shortcomings relative to other greats would then rank below even people like Wilander, Edberg and Becker even with 1 or 2 additional slams (depending if his now lost Wimbledon or French Open is replace with another) who both far surpass him in consistency and peak level of dominant play. Yet with the career slam almost all rank him over those 3.

Lets see any of those guys at 34 years of age take a prime Fed to 5 sets or play 3 straight 5 set matches and a take set off a peak Fed while being ridden with Sciatica at 35 years of age:)

God!! Andre gets no love around here. I SWEAR!!

flying24

02-20-2009, 09:17 PM

Lets see any of those guys at 34 years of age take a prime Fed to 5 sets or play 3 straight 5 set matches and a take set off a peak Fed while being ridden with Sciatica at 35 years of age:)

Well since you are going on every thread and harping on how overrated and lucky Federer is then that shouldnt be so hard now should it. Given what Rosewall, Gonzales, and even Laver were still doing in their mid 30s I wouldnt be that surprised if any of them were able to beat Federer on a given day at ages 34 and 35, not just once in awhile take a set like Agassi did.

Rosewall after all beat 7-time slam champion and top 20 player all time great John Newcombe at both Wimbledon and the U.S Open at age 39. He was beating Laver at ages 36 and 37. Gonzales was taking sets off Rosewall and Laver at age 40. That impresses me far more than anything Agassi did in advancing age.

veroniquem

02-20-2009, 09:17 PM

Agassi did not win 2 slams at 31 and up either. His 2nd last slam title- the 2001 Australian Open, was when he was 30, not 31. Both he and Connors won 1 slam title at ages 31 and up. Connors's was a U.S Open title by beating Ivan Lendl. Agassi's was an Australian Open title by beating Rainer Schuettler. Back then the other "big events" were not neccessarily Masters as they are today, so dont be so sure all of Connor's other wins at 31 and up were small events.

Agassi took until he was 22 to win an event that really mattered so dont exagerrate his early precociousness either. Connors at 21 was already dominating mens tennis.
You're right about the AO, Agassi was still 30, my bad. It's 1 slam for each after 31.

GameSampras

02-20-2009, 09:19 PM

Well since you are going on every thread and harping on how overrated and lucky Federer is then that shouldnt be so hard now should it. Given what Rosewall, Gonzales, and even Laver were still doing in their mid 30s I wouldnt be that surprised if any of them were able to beat Federer on a given day at ages 34 and 35, not just once in awhile take a set like Agassi did.

Rosewall after all beat 7-time slam champion and top 20 player all time great John Newcombe at both Wimbledon and the U.S Open at age 39. He was beating Laver at ages 36 and 37. Gonzales was taking sets off Rosewall and Laver at age 40. That impresses me far more than anything Agassi did in advancing age.

Was Laver during that timeframe the phenomenon that Fed was at 24 and 25 years of age?

Like I said.. Andre gets no love here. Its pretty sad.

GameSampras

02-20-2009, 09:25 PM

And I think yes... Fed in a way was a bit lucky mainly because of the Nadal issue. His main competitors that were consistent (prior to Nads) were who? Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, Nalby, Safin, old man agassi. Lets just substitute 08-09 Nadal into the mix for the sake of argument.

Fed has his 13 slams regardless. Nothing I can do about that.

How many slams would Fed of had if had to deal with a prime Nadal during the 04-07 timeframe.

flying24

02-20-2009, 09:25 PM

Was Laver during that timeframe the phenomenon that Fed was at 24 and 25 years of age?

Like I said.. Andre gets no love here. Its pretty sad.

What does comparing Laver during that timeframe to Federer at 24 and 25 have to do with anything. I was comparing Laver and others in their 30s to Agassi in his. So now Laver has to be as good in his 30s as Federer in his mid 20s to compare to Agassi at that age? How so, do you actually think Agassi once in awhile taking a set off Federer from ages 33-35 means they were equals at that point, and that he was somehow as good in his 30s as Federer in his mid 20s, and that is why Laver supposably would have to live up to that? No it only means Agassi was about as competitive with Federer at that point as Roddick and Hewitt were, losing every match, half the time getting a set, half the time getting destroyed. Sorry but you make no sense.

Like I said Laver, Rosewall, and Gonzales were even beating the great players at that age, not just once in awhile getting a set. It doesnt mean they were still better than them of course, but they were doing even better vs them then anything was.

GameSampras

02-20-2009, 09:28 PM

What does comparing Laver during that timeframe to Federer at 24 and 25 have to do with anything. I was comparing Laver and others in their 30s to Agassi in his. So now Laver has to be as good in his 30s as Federer in his mid 20s to compare to Agassi at that age? How so, do you actually think Agassi once in awhile taking a set off Federer from ages 33-35 means they were equals at that point, and that he was somehow as good in his 30s as Federer in his mid 20s, and that is why Laver supposably would have to live up to that? No it only means Agassi was about as competitive with Federer at that point as Roddick and Hewitt were, losing every match, half the time getting a set, half the time getting destroyed. Sorry but you make no sense.

Like I said Laver, Rosewall, and Gonzales were even beating the great players at that age, not just once in awhile getting a set. It doesnt mean they were still better than them of course, but they were doing even better vs them then anything was.

I didnt say Agassi was the only player to have longevity did I ? I said there werent many that had the longevity Andre did.

ESP#1

02-20-2009, 09:32 PM

I think Ivan Lendl is way more overrated than Agassi, i mean no one really talks about all he did,

flying24

02-20-2009, 09:32 PM

And I think yes... Fed in a way was a bit lucky mainly because of the Nadal issue. His main competitors that were consistent (prior to Nads) were who? Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, Nalby, Safin, old man agassi. Lets just substitute 08-09 Nadal into the mix for the sake of argument.

Fed has his 13 slams regardless. Nothing I can do about that.

How many slams would Fed of had if had to deal with a prime Nadal during the 04-07 timeframe.

Sounds like a fun game. While we are at it why dont we put mid 2008-beyond Nadal in those Australian Open and U.S Open finals Agassi won instead of Schuettler, Clement, Kafelnikov, Todd Martin, Michael Stich. Is it still such a breeze to those hard court slam titles where a healthy Sampras was out of the way. Oh yeah put Nadal in the French Open final instead of Medvedev, bye bye to the famed career slam now. Put Sampras of 1993-1999 in the Wimbledon final vs Agassi instead of Ivanisevic, oh look no Wimbledon or French Open left for Agassi now.

Federer has been unable to ever manage the career slam, the one and only thing Agassi has over Federer, Sampras, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, and alot of others players, because of Nadal. Could you even imagine Agassi having a prayer of ever bagging a French Open title to still have his most lauded achievement of the career slam if he played during the same time as Nadal. If you can continue dreaming.

Perhaps you might want to give a second thought to playing the "put so and so in the field" game.

GameSampras

02-20-2009, 09:34 PM

While we are at it why dont we put mid 2008-beyond Nadal in those Australian Open and U.S Open finals Agassi won instead of Schuettler, Clement, Kafelnikov, Todd Martin, Michael Stich. Is it still such a breeze to those hard court slam titles where a healthy Sampras was out of the way. Oh yeah put Nadal in the French Open final instead of Medvedev, bye bye to the famed career slam now.

Alright.. Agassi is a better player at the AO than Nadal is. Nadal is better at the french.

Bye bye to Nadal's Wimbeldon title if Grass was still grass as well and tennis still had attackers. Substitute Nadal for Agassi at the 92 Wimbeldon. Substitute Nadal for Andre at the 00 Australian and 95 Australian..

flying24

02-20-2009, 09:45 PM

Alright.. Agassi is a better player at the AO than Nadal is. Nadal is better at the french.

Bye bye to Nadal's Wimbeldon titles if Grass was still grass as well and tennis still had attackers. Substitute Nadal for Agassi at the 92 Wimbeldon. Substitute Nadal for Andre at the 00 Australian and 95 Australian..

Who knows if Nadal from 2009 onwards will prove to be stronger than Agassi at the Australian Open or not. Agassi certainly wasnt tested there during his dominance in 2000-2003. His toughest opponents were an injured Sampras (who missed the next 5 weeks, said he might have had to default the final, and still nearly beat Agassi), Kafelnikov who is an even weaker oppnonent than say a prime Hewitt or Safin, and Rafter who took until the final year of his career to even make it past the 4th round on rebound ace which doesnt favor his serve-volley game at all. Other then that Agassi beat up on legends like Rainer Schuettler, Wayne Ferreira, Sebastien Grosjean, Nicolas Escude, and Arnaud Clement to dominate that event. His most impressive title there was 1995 where he needed to save 3 3rd set set points to survive an emotionally distressed Sampras who had learnt about his coach dieing with brain tumours and was breaking down and struggling in every match there that year.

Why not substitude Nadal for Agassi at those events. That wouldnt be so bad. It is not like he would have to have beaten a healthy Sampras, or a peak Becker and Edberg in any of those events. He would only have to hang in and let Ivansevic choke away the Wimbledon final like he did vs Agassi, and beat a clearly injured or emotionaly distressed (1995 AO and 2000 AO) Sampras and a not so great like Kafelnikov (2000 AO). Definitely doable, certainly not harder than beating a prime healthy Federer to win them today.

veroniquem

02-20-2009, 09:48 PM

Alright.. Agassi is a better player at the AO than Nadal is. Nadal is better at the french.

Bye bye to Nadal's Wimbeldon title if Grass was still grass as well and tennis still had attackers. Substitute Nadal for Agassi at the 92 Wimbeldon. Substitute Nadal for Andre at the 00 Australian and 95 Australian..
How can you say that for sure? Nadal has won titles on very fast surfaces (Dubai, Madrid, the Olympics and Queen's). You're that sure he wouldn't have beaten Ivanisevic who was playing his first slam final in 1992? (It's not like Agassi had to defeat Sampras to win W). You think Nadal wouldn't have beaten an aging McEnroe in the semis? I think Nadal would have done just fine, maybe even better than Andre who had a really hard time winning the final in 5 tight sets against a young and inexperienced opponent.

GameSampras

02-20-2009, 09:49 PM

How can you say that for sure? Nadal has won titles on very fast surfaces (Dubai, Madrid, the Olympics and Queen's). You're that sure he wouldn't have beaten Ivanisevic who was playing his first slam final in 1992? (It's not like Agassi had to defeat Sampras to win W). You think Nadal wouldn't have beaten an aging McEnroe in the semis? I think Nadal would have done just fine, maybe even better than Andre who had a really hard time winning the final in 5 tight sets against a young and inexperienced opponent.

I dunno for sure of course. Buts its fun speculating. There is are no slams going on right now or Davis Cups or Masters so there isnt much tennis to talk about.. Anyways .. . Sure Nadal won Queens. But did he defeat any attackers, great serve volleyers to do so?

Lotto

02-21-2009, 03:09 AM

Federer will end this year as #4 or #5.

And Djokovic will finish ahead of him? Get over it. Djokovic wins one slam and suddenly he's superman :rolleyes:

I'd have to say that you are as bad as a ******* when it comes to Djokovic. I'll give you a tenner if Federer doesn't finish in the top 2.

Gorecki

02-21-2009, 07:00 AM

I would rather have the careers of the following before Agassi's:

Tilden (10 of them in grass)
Budge (6 slams... all in grass two less than agassi)
Gonzales (
Rosewall
Laver
Federer
Nadal (yeah.. right...)
Borg
Sampras
Lacoste
Cochet (7... 6 in grass one in clay...)
Perry
Kramer (this one is just pathetic... 3 all in grass)
Emerson
Newcombe (7)
Mcenroe (7 nuff said...)
Lendl (doubtfully...)
Connors...( by your arguments he had just the same type of career that agassi.. why the edge?)
Agassi is known as someone who managed to scrape together everything over a long career devoid of any dominance, consistency, or impressive performance vs top rivals.

i would rather have opinions like this kept to the yourself...

what puzzles me is why you left Renshaw, Sears, Wilander, Becker, Edberg... out of your list!:evil:

why not just drop any one who picked 3 slams like Kramer...

ps: i wonder you would rather have renee richards carrer to no?

Gorecki

02-21-2009, 07:03 AM

How can you say that for sure? Nadal has won titles on very fast surfaces (Dubai, Madrid, the Olympics and Queen's). You're that sure he wouldn't have beaten Ivanisevic who was playing his first slam final in 1992? (It's not like Agassi had to defeat Sampras to win W). You think Nadal wouldn't have beaten an aging McEnroe in the semis? I think Nadal would have done just fine, maybe even better than Andre who had a really hard time winning the final in 5 tight sets against a young and inexperienced opponent.

have you been smoking some wicked stuff? have you taken time to look at Agassi's draw that year? sorry but on this one you need Reallity check Veronique!

GameSampras

02-21-2009, 07:13 AM

The year Agassi beat Goran in 92 was the year Goran took out Stich and Sampras at wimby

Gorecki

02-21-2009, 07:36 AM

The year Agassi beat Goran in 92 was the year Goran took out Stich and Sampras at wimby

that year:

Goran took Pete, Stichb, Edberg, Lendl, Stolle...

Agassi took not only Goran and Jmac (who aged or not took wheaton, Cash and Forget) , Saceanu, Rostagno, and Becker... the Boris one...

so yeah... easy draw!

this forum's is getting to my nerves!

zagor

02-21-2009, 07:42 AM

How is Ivanisevic overrated? The guy is an amazing grass court player and got super unlucky to be during the Sampras era on that surface.

Glad someone agrees with me.People here talk about him like he's just a serve,Goran had an underrated return of serve and was quite an athlete,his ground game was also better than people give him credit for,his greatest weakness was that he was a headcase(kinda like Safin).As I said,no way he pushes the grass GOAT to the limit at Wimbledon like he did in '95 and '98 if he was just a serve,people here talk about him like he's another Karlovic.Ivanisevic was a grass specialist and was very dangerous on that surface,he was the only one who could go toe-to-toe with Pete in Wimbledon in that period(aside from Krajicek).

Gorecki

02-21-2009, 07:47 AM

Glad someone agrees with me.People here talk about him like he's just a serve,Goran had an underrated return of serve and was quite an athlete,his ground game was also better than people give him credit for,his greatest weakness was that he was a headcase(kinda like Safin).As I said,no way he pushes the grass GOAT to the limit at Wimbledon like he did in '95 and '98 if he was just a serve,people here talk about him like he's another Karlovic.

people here talk too much out of their pure ignorance...

that is the reason why Estoril in in South America, There is ralative mass of objects as result of traveling speed and tv fans know more about tennis than pro players...
if you know what i mean...;-)

zagor

02-21-2009, 07:53 AM

people here talk too much out of their pure ignorance...

that is the reason why Estoril in in South America, There is ralative mass of objects as result of traveling speed and tv fans know more about tennis than pro players...
if you know what i mean...;-)

Lol I know but give him a break,he's not that bad in my book and has been pretty calm lately.

veroniquem

02-21-2009, 08:04 AM

I dunno for sure of course. Buts its fun speculating. There is are no slams going on right now or Davis Cups or Masters so there isnt much tennis to talk about.. Anyways .. . Sure Nadal won Queens. But did he defeat any attackers, great serve volleyers to do so?
There aren't anymore traditional serve and volleyers a la Edberg. IMO it's because it just wouldn't work in today's game. And even in Agassi's time it started not working too well.

veroniquem

02-21-2009, 08:08 AM

people here talk too much out of their pure ignorance...

that is the reason why Estoril in in South America, There is ralative mass of objects as result of traveling speed and tv fans know more about tennis than pro players...
if you know what i mean...;-)
Ah come on, I don't want to hurt your feelings but Estoril isn't that famous that anyone around the world would know where it is! When I ask my (American) students what the capital of Spain is, I occasionally see a cloud of panic form in their eyes, so Estoril you know...

zagor

02-21-2009, 08:09 AM

There aren't anymore traditional serve and volleyers a la Edberg. IMO it's because it just wouldn't work in today's game. And even in Agassi's time it started not working too well.

Are you watching Marseille right now? It's harder to pull off in today's conditions,true,but it can still be effective it's just that juniors aren't taught to volley anymore,they're all baseliners.

Cyan

02-21-2009, 10:57 AM

Well, maybe if he wasnt so busy banging the likes of Brooke Shields, he would have achieved more slams....

veroniquem

02-21-2009, 11:09 AM

have you been smoking some wicked stuff? have you taken time to look at Agassi's draw that year? sorry but on this one you need Reallity check Veronique!
So you think Nadal would have been overwhelmed by McEnroe and Ivanisevic that year? Maybe you're smoking something that makes you see Nadal as less of a player than he actually is! (And no disrespect to Agassi who has always been one of my favorites...)

obnoxious2

02-21-2009, 11:11 AM

How can the best returner in the game be underrated? Nobody I have seen has come close to returning the ball as he did. He hit the ball so cleanly and crisply.

abmk

02-21-2009, 11:35 AM

have you been smoking some wicked stuff? have you taken time to look at Agassi's draw that year? sorry but on this one you need Reallity check Veronique!

Agree totally . That was an amazing achievement by agassi ...

rubberduckies

02-21-2009, 11:39 AM

How on Earth is Agassi underrated?
People actually mention him when it comes to talks of who is GOAT. People feel that because he has 8 slams and a career slam, this makes his career better than Lendl's and Connor's, which I think is ridiculous. Those guys didn't value slams the way guys from the 90s did. Even Agassi will tell you that his run to the FO title was largely dependent on a miracle draw where 7/16 of the seeded players lost in the first or second rounds and NONE of the other seeded players advanced beyond the quarters.

abmk

02-21-2009, 11:41 AM

So you think Nadal would have been overwhelmed by McEnroe and Ivanisevic that year? Maybe you're smoking something that makes you see Nadal as less of a player than he actually is! (And no disrespect to Agassi who has always been one of my favorites...)

He'd have to get through becker first in 92. Don't think he would . Even if he did it, against goran ,serving the way he did, very very unlikely !

And I don't hate nadal.

tahiti

02-21-2009, 11:46 AM

What a pity Nadal was only 6 years old in 1992, then we would have known more :)

JeMar

02-21-2009, 12:11 PM

I don't think he's underrated in this website, but it seems we tend to stick to discussing the extremes more than anything. We always talk about the greatest of all time, or the worst of all time. Agassi was neither, so he just doesn't come up a whole lot.

On another note, I don't consider Agassi to be *the* greatest returner of all time, although he was the most aggressive returner of all time. He got aced way too much to be considered the best ever.

Gorecki

02-21-2009, 12:36 PM

Ah come on, I don't want to hurt your feelings but Estoril isn't that famous that anyone around the world would know where it is! When I ask my (American) students what the capital of Spain is, I occasionally see a cloud of panic form in their eyes, so Estoril you know...

Ver. as a teacher your best student (if you have a best one) would say:

Teacher: i dont know where it is. ill investigate an later report with my answer.
that is a smart thing to do...

so in a smal sentence... i do excuse ignorance... what i dont excuse is refusal to learn...

i know you will understand what i am saying.

and besides... this is a tennis forum, the least you can do is to know where are held the tournaments that are counting for the world tour no?

Gorecki

02-21-2009, 12:40 PM

So you think Nadal would have been overwhelmed by McEnroe and Ivanisevic that year? Maybe you're smoking something that makes you see Nadal as less of a player than he actually is! (And no disrespect to Agassi who has always been one of my favorites...)

when the hell are you nadal fans going to understand there wouldnt be a Nadal as we know it now back in those days?

so yes... Nadal as a 80's player.. with such crappy net game and no poly? my dear... i would take Jmac by a landslide!

abmk

02-21-2009, 12:48 PM

Nadal's net game is not crappy. He's pretty decent up there. Though mcenroe was playing 'decent' in 92 , I don't think he was close to his pre-85 level ....